New Submarines: Carney vs Poilievre

[User]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

That corroborates what science concludes about your beliefs as well as all so...

"Science" doesn't conclude anything about our beliefs. 

[Down East]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Reliable allies? We can always rely on our biggest ally to go around the world picking fights to assert itself. 

NO, the USA doesn't pick fights without cause. Regardless of what you think, many of our allies are directly involved and supportive behind the scenes, even if it's not their military doing the actual dirty work, or their politicians running to the cameras. 

Can you point out all of these peaceful countries that the US has attacked?

People like you get to sit back and enjoy your material possessions while mocking the very forces that help provide them to you. It is a petty and lazy argument.

You should be thanking the US and its allies for aggressively protecting the shipping lanes that help provide you with comfort & possessions.

South China Sea

Somalia coast.

Suez Canal

Panama Canal

Arab Gulf

Med

Gulf of Aden

Red Sea

Singapore Straits

Indonesia's Archipelago

 

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, August1991 said:

We Canadians (Catholic, French, English, Protestant) have a long history of getting along.

A lot of truth in that statement.  As a Protestant Christian, I disagree with the Catholic religion, but I still like individual Catholics.  I have had Catholic friends in the past and we have sometimes been able to discuss the Bible rationally, although we usually can't seem to agree. 

Rome tells them how they must interpret the Bible and they have no choice.  It is a top down controlling religion.  Protestantism is the opposite.  We believe in individual freedom of belief and choice.  The Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, not the Pope, priest or anyone else.

There are many different kinds of individuals too.  Some are open-minded and others are close-minded.  You never know how individuals will be.  The bottom line is we live in a country where I think most people are tolerant of other people expressing different beliefs even though they don't agree.  Many other countries in the world do not have that tolerance.   I think it has to do with out history.

I would just add that in spite of the reasonableness of many ordinary Catholics, the Vatican is opposed to Bible-believing Christians.  They would rather embrace Muslims, Hindus, atheists, liberals, but not real Bible believers, because it opposes their system.   You can't mix water and oil.

Edited November 16, 2025 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

8 hours ago, User said:

"Science" doesn't conclude anything about our beliefs. 

Concludes is the wrong word...a better word would be conflicts.

Science and beliefs (religious) conflict.

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, User said:

"Science" doesn't conclude anything about our beliefs. 

Eyeball hopes "science" opposes Christian beliefs, but that's because he doesn't understand the Bible or real science.  The two are totally different.  Science is about observing how things work in this world while the Bible is about spiritual matters.  You can't mix the two or try to use science to debunk the Bible because they are totally different.

[User]

51 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Concludes is the wrong word...a better word would be conflicts.

Science and beliefs (religious) conflict.

Still wrong. Many scientists across all fields of study are religious and you can be religious and understand science. 

[Legato]

14 minutes ago, User said:

Still wrong. Many scientists across all fields of study are religious and you can be religious and understand science. 

or in the case of many on this board...you can be non-religious and not understand science.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, User said:

Still wrong. Many scientists across all fields of study are religious and you can be religious and understand science. 

Never said they could not.

Just said science and religion often conflict.... Creation science says the big bang and creation religion says Adam and Eve (christian and muslin religion)...., conflict

 

Oh and, back to the topic, submarines, I am not so sure we need submarines.   We (and the Americans) have all sorts of underwater listening devices under the Arctic ice. (I was on Operation Ice Shelf many years ago, run by US Defence Department and Canadian DARPA now called Operation Ice Bridge)

Edited November 16, 2025 by ExFlyer

[User]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Just said science and religion often conflict....

No, you added "often" in there now, not originally, and it still isn't true. Beyond the origins of everything, and even then, there is not much conflict, depending only on what some believe regarding creation, because not everyone believes the same thing. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Never said they could not.Just said science and religion often conflict.... Creation science says the big bang and creation religion says Adam and Eve (christian and muslin religion)...., conflict

The bible does not say that Adam and Eve created the universe.

The bible says that god created the universe. It does not specify the mechanism.

The fact is science is in no way shape or form and compatible with god or in conflict. Let's take evolution. The bible says god created all of the creatures on the world including Adam and Eve and he created them from the soil.

All of the creatures on this planet according to science began essentially from dirt and rocks which under the right conditions created RNA which under the right conditions created DNA and things evolve from there. Nothing says god waved a magic wand and everything appeared all at once, evolution is simply a process and it may have been a process that god created

. So no, science doesn't conflict with god as a general rule.

Which is why a lot of scientists are still religious

About the only conflict is with Occam's razor, we can explain the universe without god and some people choose to take that as evidence that there is no god. But the fact that we can explain it without god doesn't mean that there isn't a god or the he's not the one who started it. If a cup falls off the table and smashes on the floor I can explain with gravity why it happened, that doesn't tell us if someone pushed it 

I don't really believe in god but I can't prove he doesn't exist

[User]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh and, back to the topic, submarines, I am not so sure we need submarines.   We (and the Americans) have all sorts of underwater listening devices under the Arctic ice. (I was on Operation Ice Shelf many years ago, run by US Defence Department and Canadian DARPA now called Operation Ice Bridge)

The purpose of Submarines is not just to fight other submarines or underwater vessels, though... 

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, User said:

No, you added "often" in there now, not originally, and it still isn't true. Beyond the origins of everything, and even then, there is not much conflict, depending only on what some believe regarding creation, because not everyone believes the same thing. 

 

 

There really isn't any conflict at all. Absolute strict interpretations of the language of the bible is not practical because the language comes from people not god. For example the bible translated into English says that god created the universe and everything within six days. But the Hebrew word for days could also mean ages the same way we stop talk about the days of the Dinosaurs or back in my day.

And there's no doubt that the universe went through a large number of transitions before it settled down with the laws of science that we know today and the general configuration. Insane faster than light expansion, heat so intense the laws of phsycis didn't exist,  we still don' t know why or how matter formed and wasn't annihilated  with anti matter the way it is nowadays. 

 I mean at first the four fundamental fields didn't even exist. The universe as we know it was not present after the big bang. So depending on how you look at it it absolutely Can be said that the bible accurately states that it took god 6 "days" to complete the universe to the point we know it 

 

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

And every government has tied their hands together....

I bet some sort of Judge Dredd system would be to your liking.

Meanwhile...

Founders of B.C. drug 'compassion club' file Charter challenge

Co-founders argue their rights and rights of users were violated when the club was shut and they were arrested

The pair had operated a "compassion club" that sold heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine bought on the dark web and tested for contaminants.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/dulf-drug-compassion-club-charter-challenge-1.7352605

 

It's only a matter of time before the government's hands will be tied. Ater that it'll have to be up to vigilantism I guess.

[suds]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

You're dreaming.  Every anti-drug warrior in history has said the same thing.

 

According to Statista, 6% of the world's population uses illicit drugs and substances. In China, it's only .08% of the population. But they don't screw around either. Get caught trafficking more than 50g of heroin, methamphetamines, or cocaine, and you're left facing life imprisonment or the death penalty. Drug users are forced into compulsory isolation where they are detained and treated. It seems if there's a will there's a way.

[User]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There really isn't any conflict at all. Absolute strict interpretations of the language of the bible is not practical because the language comes from people not god.

Negative. Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God. It was divinely inspired. This is only talking about Christianity, anyhow, not religion in general. 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

For example the bible translated into English says that god created the universe and everything within six days. But the Hebrew word for days could also mean ages the same way we stop talk about the days of the Dinosaurs or back in my day.

Well, now you are going from making an argument about how the Bible can't be taken at its word because it was written by man to making an argument about the translations to English. 

Either way, this was my point, that there are varying beliefs on creation here. 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And there's no doubt that the universe went through a large number of transitions before it settled down with the laws of science that we know today and the general configuration. Insane faster than light expansion, heat so intense the laws of phsycis didn't exist,  we still don' t know why or how matter formed and wasn't annihilated  with anti matter the way it is nowadays. 

Well... sure, but if God created Adam and Eve... were they not adults? Yes. So, they would have been created to look at a certain age, which the same could be said of the Universe as well. Either way, now we are getting into the weeds on how to reconcile a literal creation with scientific explanations of the Universe.

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 I mean at first the four fundamental fields didn't even exist. The universe as we know it was not present after the big bang. So depending on how you look at it it absolutely Can be said that the bible accurately states that it took god 6 "days" to complete the universe to the point we know it 

Sure. That was my point, that people believe different things. 

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I bet some sort of Judge Dredd system would be to your liking.

Maybe... but he was simply pointing out how you were wrong. 

 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, User said:

"Science" doesn't conclude anything about our beliefs. 

It certainly dismisses the impossible ones.

[User]

Just now, eyeball said:

It certainly dismisses the impossible ones.

You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what "science" is. 

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Down East said:

NO, the USA doesn't pick fights without cause.

They used Colin Powell's comic book collection ffs.

 

[ExFlyer]

44 minutes ago, User said:

No, you added "often" in there now, not originally, and it still isn't true. Beyond the origins of everything, and even then, there is not much conflict, depending only on what some believe regarding creation, because not everyone believes the same thing. 

 

 

OK....????

I will revert then "Science and beliefs (religious) conflict.".

"Conflict between science and religion arises from different methods of acquiring knowledge—science relies on empirical evidence while religion often uses faith and subjective experience—and from specific, conflicting claims, particularly when religious texts are interpreted literally."

[ExFlyer]

35 minutes ago, User said:

The purpose of Submarines is not just to fight other submarines or underwater vessels, though... 

I did not mention fighting other submarines.... as a matter of fact, if fighting, subs are generally fighting surface vehicles.

Our reasoning for subs is to protect and show presence on our Northern borders as well as to demonstrate capabilities in threat detection, surveillance, and awareness.

[User]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OK....????

I will revert then "Science and beliefs (religious) conflict.".

"Conflict between science and religion arises from different methods of acquiring knowledge—science relies on empirical evidence while religion often uses faith and subjective experience—and from specific, conflicting claims, particularly when religious texts are interpreted literally."

No, you are not reverting; you are once again trying to twist what you originally said to somehow say that "beliefs" meant "religious," and even then, you are still wrong. 

People who have faith, beliefs, and religions or whatever you want to try to call it now, all acquire knowledge with scientific methods too. In fact, the study of faith, from a Christian perspective, is a scientific endeavor that utilizes facts, evidence, and methodology to interpret biblical writings. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I did not mention fighting other submarines.... as a matter of fact, if fighting, subs are generally fighting surface vehicles.

Our reasoning for subs is to protect and show presence on our Northern borders as well as to demonstrate capabilities in threat detection, surveillance, and awareness.

Then what was the point of your comment here then:

"Oh and, back to the topic, submarines, I am not so sure we need submarines.   We (and the Americans) have all sorts of underwater listening devices under the Arctic ice. (I was on Operation Ice Shelf many years ago, run by US Defence Department and Canadian DARPA now called Operation Ice Bridge)"

[User]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They used Colin Powell's comic book collection ffs.

 

How is that? 

At the end of the day, Sad Man Hussien refused to comply. 

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, User said:

Negative. Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God. It was divinely inspired. This is only talking about Christianity, anyhow, not religion in general. 

 

Every single Christian I've spoken to or watched speak agrees the bible can't be taken super literally word for word. There are questions about the translations.  And that's why there's different 'bibles'. 

And while I don't like to talk about my history too much because there are always nut bars to try and dox you We are talking about many. Not just a few I know that go to church. Even Charlie Kirk talked about this. 

The christians do you believe that the bible is god inspired but human language being what it is there is always room for interpretation even when you're speaking directly to the speaker never mind three or four language translations later

25 minutes ago, User said:

Well, now you are going from making an argument about how the Bible can't be taken at its word because it was written by man to making an argument about the translations to English. 

Not going from anything. The original was written by man, it's been subsequently translated, And even the translations have different interpretations. And whether we're talking the original Hebrew or the translations people will sit and argue for hours over the meaning of one or two phrases which is absolute proof that the meaning is not clear in universal and must be open to interpretation.

It is the way of written language.

27 minutes ago, User said:

Either way, this was my point, that there are varying beliefs on creation here. 

Sure. That was kind of my point too. But if you are correct and I am correct then it is fair to say that the bible is not incompatible with the existence of god at the same time as the science of creation.

I think somehow we worked our way back to being Basically on the same page. You can read the bible and believe that the bible is the word of god and still believe in the big bang and not have a logical conflict Like exflyer tried to claim

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

"Conflict between science and religion arises from different methods of acquiring knowledge—science relies on empirical evidence while religion often uses faith and subjective experience—and from specific, conflicting claims, particularly when religious texts are interpreted literally."

I'm afraid that's incorrect again. If you're using aI to generate nonsense you have to remember that if you say something stupid to it then the answer you get may contain stupidity as well.

Science frequently deals in the theoretical. What actual tests can we do to prove what caused the beginning of the Big Bang? None. We don't even understand what the universe was, the laws of physics were not what they are today at the moment of the big bang.  Most of science is still theoretical and they are still working out doing interesting ways to try and prove elements of it to complete our picture. But science is not based on experimentation exclusively at all. 

But again the whole thing misses the point.

Science and religion don't conflict generally speaking. Just like science and science doesn't conflict generally speaking even though often there are many different scientific theories to explain a given phenomenon. 

You'll find out more about this stuff when you hit grade 11 science courses

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, User said:

No, you are not reverting; you are once again trying to twist what you originally said to somehow say that "beliefs" meant "religious," and even then, you are still wrong. 

.....
 

 

Then what was the point of your comment here then:

"Oh and, back to the topic, submarines, I am not so sure we need submarines.   We (and the Americans) have all sorts of underwater listening devices under the Arctic ice. (I was on Operation Ice Shelf many years ago, run by US Defence Department and Canadian DARPA now called Operation Ice Bridge)"

Nope that is exactly what I said, you don't need to like it and I do not care  "

"Concludes is the wrong word...a better word would be conflicts.

Science and beliefs (religious) conflict."

 

What it means is...back to the topic about submarines which has been lost.